Glen AtwellAFL suspends Essendon runner Paul Dimattina
June 22nd 2007 11:53
News:
The AFL today handed Essendon runner Paul Dimattina a four-week suspension and barred the Bombers from replacing him following an incident that occurred during last Sunday's game against Port Adelaide.
Dimattina was ruled to be in breach of Regulation 13.12A during an incident at the 23-minute mark of the second quarter of the game at AAMI Stadium when field umpire Grun said he was verbally abused over a decision. The comment resulted in a free kick awarded against the runner.
The Bombers were also fined $5000.
The incident was the second breach of Regulation 13.12A involving Paul Dimattina. In 2006 he also received a $5000 sanction and was suspended for two matches.
----
Opinion:
Honestly, what are the AFL banging on about now? We know, we know, we've heard it all before, let's make an example in the hope it won't happen again.
The most glaring and offensive part of this decision is not the four-week ban, Dimattina probably deserved six, but the part of the penalty that disallows Essendon to replace him.
When a player strikes, kicks, spits or racially vilifies, and is suspended at the tribunal, he can be replaced.
Why then, can a runner not be substituted when he infringes?
I understand that his suspension is unique, that it does not occur in the normal course of play, but how can the AFL justify handicapping the entire side (and therefore its supporters) by only allowing the club one runner for the next month?
It could be the difference between a win and loss when Essendon takes the field against Melbourne next Friday night at the Telstra Dome.
Although, as I sit here, watching Richmond rout the Demons, I have a funny feeling Melbourne will need more than an extra runner to beat the Dons.
Glen Atwell
The AFL today handed Essendon runner Paul Dimattina a four-week suspension and barred the Bombers from replacing him following an incident that occurred during last Sunday's game against Port Adelaide.
Dimattina was ruled to be in breach of Regulation 13.12A during an incident at the 23-minute mark of the second quarter of the game at AAMI Stadium when field umpire Grun said he was verbally abused over a decision. The comment resulted in a free kick awarded against the runner.
The Bombers were also fined $5000.
The incident was the second breach of Regulation 13.12A involving Paul Dimattina. In 2006 he also received a $5000 sanction and was suspended for two matches.
----
Opinion:
Honestly, what are the AFL banging on about now? We know, we know, we've heard it all before, let's make an example in the hope it won't happen again.
The most glaring and offensive part of this decision is not the four-week ban, Dimattina probably deserved six, but the part of the penalty that disallows Essendon to replace him.
When a player strikes, kicks, spits or racially vilifies, and is suspended at the tribunal, he can be replaced.
Why then, can a runner not be substituted when he infringes?
I understand that his suspension is unique, that it does not occur in the normal course of play, but how can the AFL justify handicapping the entire side (and therefore its supporters) by only allowing the club one runner for the next month?
It could be the difference between a win and loss when Essendon takes the field against Melbourne next Friday night at the Telstra Dome.
Although, as I sit here, watching Richmond rout the Demons, I have a funny feeling Melbourne will need more than an extra runner to beat the Dons.
Glen Atwell
| 28 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
